Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns.

▲

mdp2021 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well.

▲

culi 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The metaphor is ridiculous and that's the point. GP is saying the GGP's argument is just as ridiculous

▲

ithkuil 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That simile captures perfectly the logic here. I don't think it's technically sarcasm

EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it

	▲	mdp2021 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal? I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone... I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.